Running on Empty at the DOE

"We'll have to get back to you, we're short-handed," an official at the Department of Education (DOE) recently answered a call. Although opposition on the Hill has stopped President Reagan from fulfilling a campaign promise to dismantle the department, the DOE has fired many employees, cut down on the number of publications it releases and "changed its tone." Although students and professors at Harvard's School of Education, the school with the closest ties to the department, do not believe the DOE must exist in its present form, they are generally hostile to the changes Reagan has brought about in the area of education.

Reagan advocates returning control of education "to a grass roots level" both financially and legally, but members of the Ed School believe that the federal government should continue to fund education and offer strong leadership in the area of civil rights. While Administration officials argue for state autonomy and economic recovery through budget cuts. Ed School officials contend that American education is collapsing. "Our friend Mr. Reagan took over and it's been a disaster ever since." Paul N. Lydia, dean of the Ed School, comments.

Speaking to an audience at the Ed School last month, Secretary of Education Terrel Bell explained the Reagan administration's philosophy behind the budget cuts. His message: that excessive federal intervention has allowed the states to neglect their rightful responsibilities to education. Ylvisaker believes that this prescription is inadequate and that criticizing the states does not relieve the federal government of its responsibility.

Reagan and Bell have drawn up a proposal to transform the DOE into a foundation receiving limited federal funds. They have not yet presented the proposal to Congress because "the general political information is that it won't pass," says Francis Keppel, a former commissioner of education and and currently a professor at the Ed School Reagan presented his requests for the 1983 educational budget "based on the assumption" that the foundation will be created. Throughout the budget proposals he refers to the Foundation for Educational Assistance rather than the DOE.

Most professor agree that the existence of a cabinet level department is not in itself a key factor affecting education. More important is the amount of federal money that is provided for educational programs, the stipulations on that money and the government's attitude towards civil rights. "It never made a hell of a lot of difference if it was a department or not," Keppel comments.

Of all money spent on education in this country only 10 percent--approximately $10 billion--comes from the federal government. The largest portion of this money goes toward financial aid for higher education, followed by funding for minorities and the disadvantaged in elementary and secondary schools. Lastly, the government supports educational research and certain Black colleges.

Of these areas, the government has already cut significant amounts from research funds and elementary and secondary school programs, and has proposed large cuts in financial aid. Reagan's proposed educational budget for 1983 is $8.8 billion, compared to $11.3 last year and $12.9 billion in 1981.

Although the Ed School has been adjusting to cuts in federal grants since the early '70s, funds allocated for educational research have been "cut dramatically in the past 18 months," according to David Cohen, a professor at the Ed School. The resulting cut in research staffs has consequences for student employment, as well as for professors' research The school has also lost such projects as the 10 year old American Indian program, which offered classes in Indian affairs and gave assistance to native Indian students. The program stopped receiving funding last year. Such cuts "lessen the vitality and diversity" of the school, but they do not threaten its survival, says Blenda Wilson, director of finances at the Ed School.

By contrast, the proposed cuts in the Graduate Student Loan program (GSL) would "wreak havoc" at the school. Those cuts, to be implemented mostly by raising the interest rates for students and removing certain benefits to lenders, "would have killed the Ed School," Ylvisaker declares. Over 50 percent of the student body receives GSL's and this spring student body receives GSL's and this spring student leaders organized a letter writing campaign to protest the cuts. Their objections represent the widespread Cortage of students and parents" across party lines, says Keppel, who this March testified before Congress against cutting the loans.

In addition to financial considerations, Ed School administrators and faculty members are concerned over the DOE's role in preserving civil rights. The administration is in the position of withdrawing the initiative to desegregate and it's up on court pressures," Keppel says, adding that while "in the past the federal government has taken the initiative on issues of civil rights, the present administration says that is local business." The Administration agrees that civil rights is primarily a local issue and prefers to use its powers of persuasion rather than enforcement. "We're 100 percent behind civil rights," one DOE official says. But Ylvisaker is not convinced. "The message now is: 'we don't care anymore,'" he says.

In an attempt to cut down on federal red tape, and return control over education to the states, next year's budget is organized to amass certain elementary and secondary school programs that were previously earmarked for specific projects into block grants. Approximately $400 million out of $5 billion that was previously divided into categorical grants will be given to the states to spend as they see fit, within the same broad areas. Money specifically earmarked for desegregation programs has been eliminated.

Some professors at the Ed School object to the idea of returning control of these monies to the states because, as one professor notes, the states have "not provided much enthusiasm for helping the disadvantaged." Another insisted that the "states will find other priorities."

Some local school officials see advantages to the block grants, but are concerned over the attrition in funds. "You have more discretion, before they told you what to do," says Martin Hunt. Boston's senior coordinator for external grants, adding that "our concern is that with the move to reduce funding, [the question will be] discretion over what?"

Boston city schools will actually receive more money next year than they do now but the major cuts came last year, when the city lost most of their federal funding for desegration and other programs, that came under the 1965 Secondary School Emergency Aid Act. Added to reductions in income from local taxes resulting from Proposition 2 1/2, "that hurts," Hunt says. School officials are uncertain what impact the block grants will have as that area of the 1983-84 budget has not yet been dealt with. They represent a "relatively small piece, but are important because they are a step in a certain direction. "They will not affect the racial balance in the schools because Boston is under local court desegregation orders.

Decreased federal funding, combined with a tight economy and a declining birth rate, has contributed to a general depression in the education field Graduates of the Ed School who once went on to become teachers, principals and government administrators will have to look to less traditional kinds of employment in the future. In Boston last year, 700 teachers were laid off and social science research firms which have traditionally hired graduates are trimming their ranks. One of these companies, Abt Associates in Cambridge, has fired 80 out of 90 people in its educational research department in the past few years. Graduates will probably try to find jobs with corporations or in technological fields such as television. Because of the poor job markets, fewer students are expected to apply to Harvard and other schools of education in the near future.

There is a "tendency on the part of educators to fight the Reagan regime," comments Harold Howe, a former commissioner of education and professor at the Ed School. The tendency arises from a general concern over the current and proposed reductions in aid to education and what Ylvisaker calls the "negative impact on the spiritual leadership side" One official from the DOE assuring that the department is committed to excellence in education, says that this kind of reaction represents "almost a hysteria," unwarranted by the size of the cuts.

Officials at the DOE and Harvard's Ed School differ in their philosophies and their perception of the impact of the federal actions. But on one point they agree the recent shifts in government policy represent a significant shift in the federal-state relationship in education.